Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm struck by the comparisons to be made to the accidents befalling Henry Surtees, and, to a lesser extent, Felipe Massa (who was hit by a loose spring). Not sure if the similarities are enough to warrant a related news section or to qualify them as background. I note Wilson is reported to be ex-F1. BRS(Talk)(Contribs)14:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Be careful with potentially controversial facts. If there's disagreement between sources, or if there's reason to suspect something might be tentative (or just plain wrong), don't present it as fact. Three useful techniques, all of which I used during this review: say that somebody said it, instead of saying it's true; make the statement vague enough that you're confident of it; or take it out. There are also occasions where one wants to report on the contradictory things different sources said; I dimly recall an earthquake article where USGS reported a different magnitude than the Europeans did, and we reported just that, in full detail.
One of the first things I looked for was two independent sources corroborating that he'd died. There actually were two, but one of them I didn't discover until I got to it in reading all the sources in-depth. One of the listed sources that didn't mention his death did have a link on the top left to related stories one of which was the death, and I figured it'd be marginally acceptable to make that explicit in the Sources section (conversely, it'd be very silly to not-ready the article for lack of independent corroboration when the independent corroboration was sitting right there); but I was quite relieved when I found the second mention in a cited source and was therefore able to undo the source-addition.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Be careful with potentially controversial facts. If there's disagreement between sources, or if there's reason to suspect something might be tentative (or just plain wrong), don't present it as fact. Three useful techniques, all of which I used during this review: say that somebody said it, instead of saying it's true; make the statement vague enough that you're confident of it; or take it out. There are also occasions where one wants to report on the contradictory things different sources said; I dimly recall an earthquake article where USGS reported a different magnitude than the Europeans did, and we reported just that, in full detail.
One of the first things I looked for was two independent sources corroborating that he'd died. There actually were two, but one of them I didn't discover until I got to it in reading all the sources in-depth. One of the listed sources that didn't mention his death did have a link on the top left to related stories one of which was the death, and I figured it'd be marginally acceptable to make that explicit in the Sources section (conversely, it'd be very silly to not-ready the article for lack of independent corroboration when the independent corroboration was sitting right there); but I was quite relieved when I found the second mention in a cited source and was therefore able to undo the source-addition.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
